Appeal No. 2002-1810 Page 8
Application No. 09/336,503
seq.). Replacement of the two-piece rigid structure disclosed by Goss with a solid rigid
structure would necessitate a wholesale reconstruction of the Goss load beam and
would eliminate the stated advantages provided thereby. From our perspective, the
loss of the advantages provided by the Goss structure would be a disincentive to one of
ordinary skill in the art to make the modification proposed by the examiner, and thus it
is our view that motivation to do so would not be present.
It therefore is our conclusion that Goss fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 2, and we will not sustain
the rejection.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007